Designing a “great” course

[Tommy Williamsen]

My question is, why is it so difficult to design a “great” course? I’m not sure what great means, but you get my drift.
Raynor figured out that he didn’t need to reinvent the wheel but to use tried and true holes and see how he could use them in his designs. Yet, even if I used the Alps, Punchbowl, Eden, etc., I still couldn’t design a good course. If someone would give me a good routing, I still couldn’t design good holes to complement it. As a kid, I sketched golf holes during my Latin class and my Dad’s sermons. (Sorry, Dad). I have designed hundreds of holes. I have played a lot of courses and can spot a “great” one from a good one. Nobody sets out to design a pedestrian course, but there are bunches of them, so why is it so challenging to create a great course?

[Jim Hoak]

I remember reading once--one of the first articles that stretched my love for golf course architecture--that to design a great golf course, you first had to start with a great piece of land.  Are there any great courses on sub-prime pieces of land?

[Tommy Williamsen]

Dick Wilson did pretty well at Pine Tree.

[Tom_Doak]

I remember reading once--one of the first articles that stretched my love for golf course architecture--that to design a great golf course, you first had to start with a great piece of land.  Are there any great courses on sub-prime pieces of land?

The first two that come to mind as not being readily identified as a great piece of land are Oakmont and The Old Course at St. Andrews.  Both courses are very much a product of the property they're on, but if you showed those sites to most modern architects, you'd get a "meh" response.  And I sincerely doubt that if I built either course today it would be rated as "great".


For me, the bottom line is that for something to be great, it has to stand out as somewhat different from everything else, and not just a better version of the same old thing.  That's why only a handful of Macdonald / Raynor designs on the best pieces of ground meet the threshold of "great" for me -- and why Oakmont and The Old Course beat all but one of them.

[Jeff_Brauer]

As a kid, I sketched golf holes during my Latin class and my Dad’s sermons. (Sorry, Dad).....

And no design ability is your penance?


As to your question, not every course is designed to be great.  In the case of muni courses particularly, we are often given the directive to be "serviceable" or the emphasis is placed on pace of play, easy to play, etc.  All courses should be "good" if designed by a competent architect.  But hey, even if all were great, someone would start a ranking, and sooner or later, only the top 5-10% would be judged as great.


Not to mention, on many lower budget courses, maintenance plays a role in perception, and lower budget courses often lose the "crisp" factor that higher budget courses can provide.  That said, a modestly budgeted course in design, construction, and maintenance that really stands out is really exceptional.


Great land is a benefit, but as you point out, there are many great courses on average land.  Perhaps the saddest courses are below average courses on great land.


To specifically answer your question, it's pretty easy......find a natural hole on the property, then rinse, lather, and repeat 17 more times.


You are welcome!

[Ira Fishman]

Jeff,


What are some examples of the “saddest courses” (to use your term)?


Ira

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,
What are some examples of the “saddest courses” (to use your term)?
Ira

The one that quickly comes to mind is Torrey Pines, where Bell put his standard design features out on a site that cries for some kind of design that reflects the site......and Rees' renovation was necessarily aimed at making the course look and play US Open tough rather than a unique ocean front course.


There are many other less famous examples where for whatever reason (owner ego, wanted to "save money" by not hiring a gca) where a great site isn't just reflected in the design but is instead totally butchered with poorly routed holes.

[Mike Nuzzo]

I believe the biggest reason there aren't more great golf courses is because so few people have been given a chance - understandably.
 
Some time ago there were comments about design being at an optimum capitalization rate - today's modern growth of good designers was plentiful.
It may be plentiful, but maxed out isn't even close.
The pool of golf course designers comes from less than ten % of the population (golfers), and a narrow population at that.
The barrier to entry is enormous - no starving artists need apply. Starving artists didn't grow up playing golf.
Starving artists don't give a flip about golf.
 
For background search Malcolm Gladwell and capitalization rate or read about runners and hockey players
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcMKLwVlpJk
https://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom/2007/11/kenyan-runners.html

[Tom_Doak]

I believe the biggest reason there aren't more great golf courses is because so few people have been given a chance - understandably.

It's not just that, but how few of even the people who are in the business have the chance to really develop their skills over time.  We all get much better with practice, but most architects don't get a lot of practice at routing courses or shaping greens or any of the other specialties that make one great.